Allowed

Mohd. Nizamuddin v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC11 Dec 2025WP/26433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contingent sweeper with over three decades of service sought regularization and last grade pay benefits. The court held he was entitled to have his claim considered under Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents on regularization of long-serving irregular appointees, and directed him to submit a representation for decision within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed without costs; petitioner directed to submit representation claiming regularization and last grade pay benefits; respondents to examine and pass reasoned orders within four weeks

Mohd. Nizamuddin Vs The State of Telangana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132s21

¶2

E j.,4.
*

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} r AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

i THURSDAY, THE^{ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:264330F 2021}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd. Nizamuddin,is/o^{Mohd. Ghousuddin,Agedabout49 years,.working.as} Eiji'iiL"-C6"tiirieni^{S*"Jp"l in the Acc6unts Branch of office of the} b;;;i;tL"*^{Jt iotice,HyddrabadDistrict' Basheerbagh' Hyderabad' TS'}

...PETlrloNER

AND

1. The State of Telangjana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary' Home Department'} Telangana Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶15

¶16

1. The State of Telan(ana,^{Rep. by its Principalsecretary'Finance and} Planning Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶17

¶18

The Commissioner^{bf Police, HyderabladCity, Basheerbagh' Hyderabad'}

¶19

The District^{Collector and Chairmanfor Minimum Wages Committee and} oiJtr-i"i slrl"ti"n do.rnitt"",^{HyderabadDistrict,Hyderabad'}

¶20

..RESPONDENTS

¶21

petition under Artitle I 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in} ithe i^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an order:or direction^{more particularly onein the nature of writ of} Mandamus to^{declare tlie} l^{inactionof the respondentsin not regularizingthe} services of the^{petitionerinor} i^{grantinglast grade time scalebenefitsto petitioner} even after working^{on fuil time basisfrom 31 long years in the contingentpost} without any service^progress : on^{par with regularly engaged employeesin the last} grade post from the date of his appointment^{(16/0Bi1990)to till dateby paying} pittance wage of Rs. 40OO/- per month by denying him to^pay legitimate or^living' wages in violation of^provisions of^{Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Equal} Remuneration Act, 1976 and^{Article 14, 16, 21, 39(d),43, 300 (A) of our} constitution and Govt. orders issued^{in GO Ms. No. 193 GAD, dated 14103/1990}

i. #

4:i

as unjust, unfair, totalli i illegal, in^{subjecting the petitior 3r for exploiiative} enslavement due to his helplessness^{conditions of pcr 3rty' poor social,} econdmical^political backlround I by taking^{it as advantage b" the respondentsin} contin'uing him as contin$ent worker without any^servicepro 3^{r:ss withmonetary} benefits on^par with reguiar one ! for more^{than three decader:, rnd prays to direct} the respondents herein lo , treat lhe^{petitioner as regular one f om the date of his} I appointment (16/08/1S90, for all^purposes by^{granting him reg rlar last grade pay} benefits with^periodical increments from time^{to time alon; with1 00 percent} compensation on the arr6ars I of^pay by^{keeping in view of i)- longyearsservice} rendered by the^petition'er I in contingent establishment of^{tl e 3rd respondent} Department by applying the^principles laid by Hon'ble Suprent',^{Court in the case} ,i of Prem Singh Vs Stater of UP, Netram Sahu and^{Avthar t;handfollowedby} Double Bench case of Kh'ader Basha with WP^{No. 38763 of 2( 18 and also award} rl exemplary cost. i

¶27

i I I I lA NO: 1 i OF 2021 I

¶28

¶29

I I I Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrr nstances statedⁱⁿ I the affidavit filed in supy'ort of the petition, the High Court r ray be^pleased to I I directlthe responden ts hbrein to regularize the services of tl- r^{petitioner in} the I existing last grade^p ost lreating the petitioner as regular or r by^granting time i scale of pay in the last grade post to the^petitioner alc,r^gt with^periodical I rncremrtenls from time to tiine.

¶30

Couniel for the PetitionJr: SRI CH.GANESH

¶31

Counbel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR^HOME

¶32

H;...i..' S^{i-1 t: :',} ,; corn!.r for the ResponJent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE & PLAII^llNG s,. G;#i,' ti coun!.t forthe Respondent No.4: cP FOR REVENUE ffi&*,*o :5_rne clourt made the tottotaing: oRDER & "^t!, s

a:.-. . .^r.-..

SN,J wP 264J) 2021

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶38

WRIT P TION No.26433 OF 2021

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and^3, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶41

2. The Detition r aooroached this Court seekino the praver as under:

¶42

"...to issue an order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the^services of^the petitioner nor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on full time basis from 31 long years in the contingent post without any service^proqress on^par with regularly engaged employeesⁱⁿ the^{last grade} post from the date of his appointment^(16/08/1990) to till date by^{paying pittance} wage of^{Rs 4000/- per month by} denying him to^pay legitimate or^{living wagesin violation of} provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Articles^14, t6,^{2L, 39(d), 43,}

SN,J L'.P 26433 2021

300(A) of our Constitution and Govt. Orders i;;ued in GO Ms. No. 193 GAD, dated t4/03/1990 as unjust r rfair totaily illegal in subjecting the petitioner for )xploitative enslavement due to his helplessness condition; of poverty poor social economical political background. by aking it as advantage by the respondents in continuir l him as contingent worker without any service pro lress with monetary benefits on par with regular one for more than three decades and prays to direct the respondenj s herein to treat the petitioner as regular one from the < ate of his appointment (16/08/1990) for aI purposes by gr ]nting him regular last grade pay benefits with periodical ncrements from time to time along with 100% compensat on on the arrears of pay by keeping in view of 31 long y{l trs service rendered by the petitioner in contingent esta b I shment of the 3'd respondent Department by applying th: principles laid by Honourable Supreme Court in the car; I of prem Singh Vs State of UP Netram Sahu and Av.:l ar Chand followed by Double Bench case of Khader Baslt I with Wp No.38763 of 2018 and also award exemplar'/ cost and pass..."

¶47

Learned counsel aDDea I tnq on behall' of the oetiti ner olacino reliance on the averm ents mi1le in the affidavit filed in suDDort of the orese t writ petition Dert lnlno tn Da rticular, to the servtce ren < ered bv oetitioner with the res ond ents herein for mor ! than a

SN,J wP 26433 2021

decade contends that the oetitioner is entitled^{for the} relief as D raved tor in the oresent writ etition.

¶52

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

¶53

DISCU SSION AND^C oNcLusIo^N

¶54

Learned cou nsel a DDea rl nq on behalf of^the etiti o ubmits the su tssu h re eas cov the of thi d 09. sed P.No. of2 rte o11 Pa 4asc ed A.No.7 20LO. dated 1O.05.2013 and^{a!so order,dated 19.O9.20L7} 2018⁽²⁾ ALD passed in W.P.No. 272L7 ot 2OL7 reDorted i Paqe 282 and also the order^{, dated 2L.o4.020 oassed in} W.P.N o.23O57 of 2019^reoo ed in 2O2O( 4) ALD Paqe 379.

¶55

Lear ed Government^{Pleaer for Ho} e aDDean oon behalf ot the res ondent^{No3submits that the qrievance} of the oetition er as out^{-forth in the Dresent WritPetition} had not been addres^sed to the^{resoond ents hereinas on} date a nd therefore, the oetitioner cannot com olain naction h art of r on n h retn tn c en he rieva n f h itao r and n e t lief pra ed for bv the petitioner in the D resent Wit oetition

¶56

¶57

SN,J wP -26433 202t

¶58

can not be qran ted and no Ma nda mus ca f - be issued aq inst there D nde n e tsh reu n er as souo h t for and the Det tioner mav be directed to D ut-forth the p t tion er's evanc a u f h t e r s n r P I ron bv v o d it dr r nta I n ot e e t ! herein and t c a t h aa n a o h t1 tsDO nd ents would consider the sa m e tn a co rdance to lav, with in a reasonable oeriod.

¶59

Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of tht !, petitioner does notd ts ute the sardsu b rssr on m a ebv I I elearn o e nm n Pleader forHo me AD DEannq n be h rlf of th e res ondent N o.3.

¶60

7 c u nt e (2o 20) I c s P vS o J a( esh and others, at D t. 36 he !d a n e

¶61

"36. There are some of fl regularized i" .pii"^'"riri,! -employees^{who have nol reen} rendered the services f'r 3040 or more ,";;;;;;;:'lns As they hur;-;;.kJ'i;"s..they^{have been superannrr} 'ted. not asi insi' Jn ; ;;il.Ji:.ti"--work-cha^rsed establish r ent, nare^-0""n ."fi#;il"j].,Pfo;ect'-their^services ou(rl t to and even "rfti',h" ;:',:,:i-!n".Government intt.r,', nnl r"":ltlil;t# ,;TJ"",:,^lll,ilfl,.,l ::ffi 1l ff:,:ii rendered for more ,,.'un ,u1!. -'l case. services have t :en Court,s order, .;^{';";;:Iearswithout} the cover of rhe resurarized or',;n "J;;i#:",:i;'l;:, # ;,:il:";,, .li

SN,J

*ry 26433 2021

those employees who have^{worked for ten years or more} should have been regularized.^{It wouldnot be proper to} regulate them for consideration^{of regularizationas others} ha-ve been regularized,^{we direct that their servicesbe} treated as a regular one.^{However,it is madeclear that} they shall not be entitled^{to claimingany dues of difference} in wages had they been^{continuedin service regularly} before- atta ining the age^{of superannuation.They shallbe} entitled to recLive the^{pension as if they have retired} rces from the reoular^{establihmentad the se} ere the t from eda e I s m Ib nt ouali rno servl e for ourD^{ose of oenion.}

¶67

a. The Aoex cou^{rt in thecase ofDharwadDistrictPWD} Literate Dai v Waoe^{Emolovees AssciationVs. Staeof} Karnata ka r oorted in 1990( )sccP^{oe 396aid orinci ole} emoora or that the State shou dnotk^{EDADE rson rn} adh c servlce for Iono Dert od^andhave treat uch persons as reqular one.

¶68

Para No.53 of the^{ofthe iudoment of the AoexCourt} int e State of Karn^{taka and other} Vs. Umadevi,^dated 10.o4.2006 reDo rte in⁽² 05) 4 scc^{1is extrcted} hereu nd er

¶69

"53 . One as^{Dect needs to be clarified. Theremavbe} ca s where lrre^o ular Dooi nt ents not illeoal ADD ointments)asex^{olaied inS.V. Naravana oDa} 19 1 128 und 19 1 c an B N.N ra L979 sc 7 and referred toⁱⁿ Dara 15 abov of d lv oual ed ave pe ons in dulvsa nctione d^{vacant Dostsmioht} been made andt e emolovees have nti nued to

¶70

.

(

SN,J \LP 26433 2021

work for ten vearsor more but witho t the tntervention of orders of the courtso r trib nals. Th e question of req ula rization of the se ,r v es of such I l- on merits in the Iioht of the ori cioles settled b Court in the cas s aboverefer dto nd in the ioht of this iud^qment. In that context,theU nlon rf India, the Sta eGo vernme nts and their tns t umen I ities should take steDs to re q ula rize as a one-time measure, the servi esofs ch ir ula y appointed, who have worked for te n vears or I tore in dulv san tioned osts b tnotu der cover ol rrd ers of the courts or of tribunals and should furthe1 ensure that reo lar recruitme nts are underta ken o fill those vacant sanctioned oosts that require trI be filled uo, tnc ses where tem orarv emolove s ol lai v wao ers are beinq now emoloved. The orocess rr ust be set in motion with ln srx months from this date .! il:a

¶75

The iudqment of the Aoex Court datecl- 2O.LZ.2OZ4. reoorted in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jao,l) Anita and others v Unio nof Ind ia a dot ers, a nd ihe releva nt Daraq ra oh Nos.12. L3. 24, 26. 7 and 8:re racted hereu nder:

¶76

"12. Despite being labelled as "part- time workers," the appellants performed t tese essential tasks on a daily and contirr lous basis over extensive periods, ranging .rom over a decade to nearly two decades, t heir engagement was not sporadic or tempc rary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, re1; rtar, and akin to the responsibilities tyfi,:ally associated with sanctioned posts. Morec ver, the respondents did not engage an! r) thgl personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring^- the indispensable nature of their work.

¶77

¶78

SN.J wP 26433 202t

¶79

these w e tu o the or or d AD pellantswas oerenn ial and fu dam ental to the n tion t o e The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. Thls act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further u ndersc ores that the work in questron was neither temporary nor occasional.

¶80

The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, ill ustrating the consequences of misclassiFying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case M icrosoft classified certain workers as inde pendent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entiued to the same bene fits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of em ployee benefits, thereby rncreasing their profits. Thi s judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determi ne employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hti th u ta sr tn r s a ca s nd nsu r t rk s ecet tr me

¶81

?9:--. .While^{the judgmentin Uma Devi (supra)} sou.ght to curtail the practice of backdoor'entries ano ensure appointments adhered to constitutional

¶82

¶83

SN,J wP 26433 202t

¶84

principles, it is regrettable that its princip ( s are 9ft9n^{misinterpretedor misapptied todeny} legitimate claims of long serving employees This , judgment aimed to distinguish between i egal" and " irregula r" appoint ents. IL __tateooricallv held that emplove e s in irreoular apoointments, who were enoa ged in EI ,r rved -il u T ,l ould id r _ one. Howe rnt of the^judgment is being subverted when instil rtions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reje : the claims of employees, even in cases whert : their appointments are not illegal, but merel, , lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gover . xent departments often cite the judgment in Um : Devi (supra) to argue that no vested rig r. to regularization exists for temporary empl( )^/ees/ overlooklng the judgment's € ) plicit acknowledgment of cases where regularizal i rn is appropriate. Th is sele tve aD licatio n di:i orts the iudome t's soiritando rDose, ec !^velv wea oonizin it aoainst emo lovees who ltave ren red indispensa ble services _^)ver dec des.

¶85

In light of these considerations, ir our opinion, it is imperative for governilent departments to lead by example in providini fair and stable employment. Engaging workers rn a temporary basis for extended periods, esptrr ially when their roles are integral to the organizat on's functioning, not only contravenes internat rnal labour standards but also exposes the organi, i tion to legal challenges and undermines emplc yee morale. By ensuring fair employrr ent practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigat on, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that t rey ar€_ meant to embody. This approach a i;ns with international standards and sel: a positive precedent for the private sectc,r to

SN,J \P 26433 2021

I lli t I

follow, thereby contributang to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶91

2A. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:

¶92

i. The termination orders dated 27.LO.2078 are^quashed;

¶93

lt. The appellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their ervtce sed forth wev llants shall not U an ec benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would en n tnu! f servi for the said oeriod and the same wo uld be counted for their oostretiral benefits."

¶94

The Judqment of the Aoex Court date 31.O1-2025 reported in 2O 25 INSC L44 in^*SHRIPAL A^{ND ANOTHER v.} NAGAR NIGA GHAZIABAD". in oarticula r, the relevant oara Nos.1 5 to 19 are extracted her^{eu nder:}

¶95

*15. It is manifest that the ADDellant Workm en continuouslv rendered their services over^several vears, some imes soannino more than a^decade. Even if c rtain muster rolls were not^{oroduc ed in full,} the Emolover^,s faiI Ure to furnish such recordses da cti n do u ws n adv inference under lrvell-establish d labour

¶96

¶97

SN,J wP 26433 202t

¶98

iurisorudence. Indian tabour law stronl lv disfavors perDetual dailv-waoe or contractual enrI loements in ctrcum stances where the work IS D€ rmanent in natu re. Moral vandl qallv. w rkerli who fulfil onqoanq munici pal reouirements vear aflter vear can not be dismissed su mmarilv as rllspe-[sa-ble, oarticularl v in the absence of a o enuir 1_ contractor aoree ent. At this juncture, it would be : tpropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite^{,.temporary,,} employment practices as done by a recent .,rdgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in he following paragraphs:

¶99

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporar/ employment contracts, as exemplified in this ca:;r , reflects a broader systemic issue that adve r ;ely affects workers' rights and job security. Ir the private sector, the rise of the gig economy lr rs led to an increase in precarious employment i trangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, iob security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and tndermining labour standards. Government instituti( I s, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility tt avoid such exploitative employment practices. ! /hen public sector entities engage in misuse ()l temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrirr ental trends observed in the gig economy but ,lso sets a concerning precedent that can erode pu ) ir: trust in governmental operations.

¶100

It is a disconcerting reality th;,1 temporary employees, particularly in governmenl institutions, often face multifaceted forms of explo t )tion. While the foundational purpose of temporary cc ntracts may have been to address short-term or sezr: onal needs, they have increasingly become a mecha - sm to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-terrr obligations

¶101

¶102

SN.J wP 26413 2021

¶103

owed to employees. These^{practicesmanifestin} several ways:

¶104

o Misuseo f "Tem oorarv"L^ahes :EM D lovees for work hat is es ll recurrrn ndi ral to th rontn o nrn titutio n labe as "te rar m I rror "contra tual," even when their^roles those of reoular em Dlovees, Such miscla ification deorives workers of the diqnitv, secu ritv, and benefits^{that reoular} ees are n dto d erfo rm identical tasks.

¶105

. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or^{notice,as seen} in the^present case. This^{practice underminesthe} principles of natural^justice and subjects workers to^a state of constant insecurity,^{regardless of the quality} or duration of their service.^{.Lack of Career} Progression: Temporary employees often^find themselves excluded From opportunities^{for skill} development,^{promotions, or incremental pay raises.} They remain stagnant in their^{roles,creatinga} systemic disparity between them^{and their regular} counterparts, despite their^{contributionsbeing} equally significant.

¶106

. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing^{roles performedby} temporary employees, effectively^{replacing one set} of exploited workers with^{another.This practice not} only perpetuates exploitation but^{also demonstrates} a deliberate effort to bypass^{the obligationto offer} regula r employment.

¶107

. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied^{fundamentalbenefits} such as^{pension,provident fund, health insurance,} and paid leave, even^{when their tenure spans} decades. This lack of^{social security subjectsthem} and their families to undue^{hardship, especially in} cases of illness, retirement, or^unforeseen circumstances. "

SN,J wP 26433 2021

The High Court did acknowledge tl e Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations, lonsequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wag: ; with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regretl. bly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant 'A c,rkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still un: :rtain status. While the High Court recognized the imporl lnce of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatio r it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaninglr I back wages commensurate with the degree of statut )ry violation evident on record.

¶112

L7. In light of these considerations, th r Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmr:r stands in violation of the most basic labour law principl s. Once it is established that their services were termirr ted without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the L.). Industrial Disputes Act, Lg4l , and that th vw re !noaoed in sen nn ties the w er;.; cannot be releoated to oeroetual uncertaintv. Wh I i concerns nt al bu an ti a nce with cr r m rt nsi era ( h oncerns n bs lve EE r t rbli^qatio ns a ui lee itle en Indeed, ra ti ti t le^qit imate h of or en h av s ed n: nuouslv in de facto requtar roles for an extended peril ,d. 8.7 ne o of th H' Cc,r rrt, to the n e c fin th A lla w r mo t to future

¶113

¶114

SN,J wP 26433 2021

¶115

dail Y-l^,aoe enoa^qement witho ut co tin uitv or me n i noful back waoes- as herebv set as de with the foll owrno d irectio ns:

¶116

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 7947, . is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶117

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respecti ve posts (or posts aki n to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire o riod of a sence (from the date of termtnation U ntil a ctual rein statement'l sha ll be counted for contin uitv of servtce and all con eo uentia! benefits. su hass en ioritv and eliqibilitv for oromotaons. if anv,

¶118

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.

¶119

IV. The ResDondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and trans arent orocess for req larizino the Ao ella nt Workmen within six mo ths fro the ate of reinstat ement, dulv con iderino the fact that t ev have performed n mu al dut t ma o sstn raz m sh ot im uc al Drocedural criteri a retroa ctivelv if such ts nev a t Aooellant orkm e or similarlv situated

.=ffi

SN,J wP 26433 2021

reo ular emD lov es in the ast. I r the extent that sa nctioned vacancies r su(! duties exist or are reoui red the Resoondent I nplover shall exoedite all necessarv administra t ve Drocesses to ensu re these lo notime emolo'' ees are not indefinitelv retai ned on dail waq€ s contrarv to statu torv and uitable norms.

¶125

In view of the above, the appeal(sr' filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal( ;) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.',

¶126

L2. The Aoex Court in iudoment reoortec in⁽ 20L71 L Suoreme Court Cases 148. in State of puniil 2 and others vs Ja^qiit Sinoh nd others at Paras 54 and _ ts sub-paras (L)(2)(3). of the said iudo ent observed as g nder:

¶127

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, wI ile adjudicating upon the above controversy had conctuded, hat temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of t te regular payscale, merely for the reasont that the activitie: carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similer The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary em,t tyees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entiT )d to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular ,mployees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the hi, 'h Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶128

"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contr.(:ual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if ,ppointed after undergoing a selection process based upt r; fairness and equality of opportunity to alt other eligi le candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the reguler pay scale from the date of engagement

¶129

(2' But if ilv wao ad oc 2'_^contractual I sa t otn h inst oular sanctioned sts and their serurce a ava ed continuouslv. with notional breaks, ,v the Sfate o n tn n sl ! r a sufficient n o , 7 da! y-wase!s,__aC

SN,J wP 26413 2021

hoc F COn ual aoooi tees shall be^entitl to mrnt umo f reoular oav scale without^env allowances on the a umotion that wo of atu sa ean n ed fo such lono oeri^odo time- an eo itabI,e rit ht ,s , f r of ns lai reQu rization, if anv. m v have^{tobe consiered} ra r, all e

¶135

(j) In the event, a claim is made^{for minimum pay scale} uft", -ore than three^{years and two monthsof} completion of 70^years of^{continuousworking, a daily} wager, ad hoc or contractual^{employeeshall be entitledto} arrears for a^{period of three yearsand two months."}

¶136

d fth e re o 2 9 scc 247 between: State f Karnataka and others v M.L. Kesari and others, in^Da icula r, aras 4 to 9 read^sas

¶137

under:

¶138

Thedecision in Sta^{te of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered} onl .4.2006^{(.reDortedin 2006 G)SCC 1)In that case. a} Consti ion Be of this Court held^{that appointments made} without following the^{due processor} the rules relating^to appointment did not^{conferany righto} n the appointees^and courts cannot direct their^absorption, regularization or^re' engagement nor make^{theirservice permanent,and the High} Ciui in exercise of^{jurisdiction underArticle 226 of the} Constitution shoutd^{not ordinarityissuedirectionsfor absorption,} regularization, or^{permanent continuanceunlessthe recruitment} hid been done in a^{regular manner, interms ofthe} constitutional scheme;^{and that the courts must be carefulin} ensuring that theY^{do not interfere unduly with the economic} arrangiment of its^{affairsby the State or its instrumentalities,} nor l;nd themselves^{to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing} of the constitutional^{and statutory mandates' This Courtfurther} hetd that a temporary,^{contractual, casual or a daily-wage} employee does^{not have a tegat right to be madepermanent} uniess he^{had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in} adherence of^{Articles 74 and 16 of the Constitution'This Court} however^{made one exceptionto the aboveposition and the} same is^{extracted below:}

SN,J wP 26433 202t

"53. One asoect needs to be clarified rhere mav be cases where irreoular aooointment (not illeoal _^NaravanapDa ora f7 972 (7) _'41 SCC 507t ^lulv oualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant oo. s ioht have been made and the emolovees iai continued to r t without the terv o o f cou r! of tribunals. I ' services of ir ,nsidered on l ttled bv this 4^t in the lioht t he Union of a. theSt te co ts _ and their _'eoularize as 1'h irreqularlv L^rars or more lv sa ction Dosts but notut l^ler cover of ers , and should ! tments are 'ioned posts ! ases where te ora em es I ; are beinq no emolo ved. The Droce must be s1t in motion w, hi,nst mon hs this date

¶143

"5. It is evident from the above that there i: an exception to the general principtes against ' regularization. )nunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions aie futfilted ;

¶144

(i) The employee concerned should have worked q r 70 years or Tor:^{i!1 dulysanctionedpost without the benefito, protection} of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In othir words, the State Government or its instrumentality shoutd h, ve employed the employee and continued him in service t c tuntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶145

(ii) The appointment of such employee should r t be i egal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are Dt made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum ,uatifications, the appointments wi be considered to be i egal. t tt where the person employed possessed the prescribed quall.ications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had L:en selected with.out undergoing the process of open competi )e selection, such appointments are considered to be irregilar

---2

SN,J wP 26433 2021

(iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uoon e concerned tor entali to es of ose tr, m o es wh h rm than ten without the benefit or Drote ion of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months m the dete^-of its decision (rendered on 70.4.2006).

¶151

The term^'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentalitY should undertake a one-time exercise and^prepare a^{list of all} casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been^working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a^{process verification} as^to whether they are working against vacant^posts and^possessthe requisite qualification for the^post and if so,^regularize their services.

¶152

At the end of six months from the date of decisionⁱⁿ Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual^employees were still pending before Coutts. Consequently,^several departments and instrumentalities did not commence^{the one'} time regularization^process. On the other hand,^some Government depaftments or instrumenta lities undeftook^the one-time exercise excluding several^{employeesfrom} consideration either on the^ground that their cases^{were pending} in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances,^the employees who were entitled to be considered^{in terms of Para} 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose^{their right to be} considered for regularization, merely because the^one-time exercise was completed without considering^{their cases, or} because the six month^period mentioned in^{para 53 of Umadevi} has expired. The one-time exercise should^{consider all daily-} wage/adhoc/those employees who had^put in^{10 years of} continuous ser-vice as on 10.4.2006^{without availingthe} protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise^{in terms of para53 of} umadevi, but did not consider the cases^{of some employees who} were entitled to the benefit of^para 53 of Umadevi,^{the employer} concerned shoutd consider their cases also,^{as a continuation of} the one-time. exercise. The one time^{exercisewill be concluded} only when alt the employees who^{are entitled to be considered} in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are^{so considered.}

SN,J wP 2643,3 202t

L The obiect behind the said direction i,l para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. Firs ,s to ens re tha ! those who ut in re ten co !^tousservice with out the rotectio of anv interim ets of rts or tribu als, be the date of decis tn ! madevi was rendered. are considered for reoularizatic , tn vtew of their lono se tce. Se disto ensltt e that the deoa ents/ instrumen talities do not De ,J oetuate the c of lo on A^lv-waoe/ad- hoc/casual for lono De ods and thet, Deriodicallv requ them on the oround that they hi, ,e senred for more or statutorv than ten orovisions vears, therebv relatino defeatino to therecI^{l titment onstitutional} and AD tment. The true effect of the direclt' tn is t all persons who have worked for more than t<1 I vears as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in llmadee ! without the ro ofa n teri, er cou _r tribunal. in vaca t Dosts. o srn., the reou isite ou,, ification, are en titled to be considered for oula tion. The fact that l. un ken r exerc ise of redularizatio n with srx months o th decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was unde I aken lv in teoerd to Ltm, few. will notd lr entitle such emolo vees, the rioht to conside for 'eou larization I ts a one-time measure.

¶157

These appeals have been pending for more han four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant ( lita panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of espondents of regularization within six months of the decisio., rn Llmadevi or thereafter.

¶158

The Division Bench of the High Court has l rected that the cases of respondents shoutd be considered in , ccordance with law. The only further direction that needs be ) ven, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, Gac:t q should now undeftake an exercise within six months, a g z ieral one_ time regularization exercise, to find out whether tie e are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila ,,anchayat and'if so whether such employees (including the res nndents) futfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of llmad Ni. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If : uch an exercse has already been undertaken by ignoring or 01 itting fhe cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered ir continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not futfilt the -equirements of

¶159

¶160

SN.J wP 26433 202t

¶161

Para 53 of Umadevi, their seruices need not be regularised. lf the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶162

In the iudq ment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinqh nd others v. State of Pun ab re orted in 20 3 L4 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusavely within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. a refuse acceot the defence that there werqr ctioned oosts and so there was iustifica ion for^{the Stateto utilise} services of Iarqe number of Deo ole !ik llants for

i ll I ll I I 1 : I

S N,J wP 26433 2021

deca des. It held that "sanct ioned oosts do 1 fall fr heaven" and that th State has to create them bva consctous choice on the basis of me rationa! assessment of need. R errt no to Um adevi, it held th ttl 1r aooellants fo emw ren arbi r it h n th ir initial ( nt as it had been made ln accorda nc with the statuto1l orocedure Drescribed under the Police ct, 185 arr I the S te cannot be heard to sav that they are not rl rtitled to be absorbed into the serva soft he Sta eotD rmanent bas sas,a ccord inqto t their a Dointment! wereourelv tem DOra rv and not aoain anv a nctio ed g osts created bv the S te. It was held that the iudqmerq in Umadevi can ot be meal icence for exoloatatio bv I he State and its instru enta lit es an neither the Go rer ment of Puniab nor those ublic ctor B nks ca ncc )l rtin ue such a Dractice inconsist nt wit their obl ioat on t r function in accordan with the Constitut on.

¶167

The iudoment of the Aoex Court repErted in 2O15 c nl s L7 betw enB rt ntv ulu and othersv N llo u cl al Cor ati e ts I^ommissioner,

SN,J w? 26433 202t

,t, !, l

I I i

-1

Nellore Di stract, Andhra Pra esh and others, in particular

¶175

Daras 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶176

(7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reasonino adoDted bv the Hioh C,ourt. The rioht of the aDoellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The aooellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseo uent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

¶177

In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480.

¶178

In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2015) a SCC 255, the Supreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularizataon of such appointment, which are arregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emolovment of those oerso s who had served the State Government and their instru entalities for more than ten ears". ase o ee asw 9 ea

¶179

¶180

SN,J \NP 26433 2021

¶181

This decision aDDroves earlier view er I ressed in

¶182

M.L.Kesari extracted above.

¶183

L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad^'eported in

¶184

20L4 7 SCC 2 s it r ! en bv^the Supreme Court and it was held as follows :

¶185

relevant "47,,,. In contentious view of the issue cateqorical that the respondfindinq^r , tt ' fact emoloveeson the have continued in their service for more t, tan 7O vears continuously therefore, the leqal orinciole aid down bv this Court in Umadevi case^(State of Kamatqka v Umadevi (2OOG) 4 SCC I : 2OOG SCC (L&S) 73) at pat t 53 squarely aoolies to the oresent cases, The Divisiotl Bench of the Hish Court has riqhtlv held that th^g - resoondent emolovees are entitled for the relief. the s2 ne cannot be interfered with bv this Court,"

¶186

The Judgment of this Court datecl 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276(,2 of 2O19 whi<:l r pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshr ri Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda f) stract, which had been upheld by the Division Benclr of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.1O.:! )23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2O24.

¶187

The iudqment of the Apex Court ir! Hari Krishna Mandi r Tru st V- State of Maharashtra and CI hers reported

,;rr;..;l::f,&td*rgi

SN,J wP 26433 2021

OSu em Cou rt artic I1 r r

¶192

Nos.1O o and 101 h eld as follows:

¶193

"100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise such o r w ere the Governmen r e ercise or has wr n discretion conferred uoon t bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised suqh discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.

¶194

In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

¶195

The Division Bench of this Court an its Judqment dated 10.05.2013^passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while upholdlnq the Judqment dated 08.O9.201O n a ed nW P o.2437 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No 4 observed as under:-

¶196

"Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a^{ppellant-Corporation} also issued various office orders/circula rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It ls also to be seen that Section 25T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the

SN,J $]P 26413 2021

learned single Judge considered^{all the aspectsof he matterin} detail, in the^{proper perspective,which, in our cot sideredview} does not warrant interference^{in these appeals'"}

¶201

The Divisio Bench of this Court^init C Jud ment dated 19.09.20 17 Dassedⁱⁿ W.P-No. 2727, ot^2OL7 reDorted in2 18(2)A^{LD oaoe 282 at Dara16 j nd para18} observed as^{under: -}

¶202

It is trite that the law declared by the St 1 reme Court is binding throughout the^{country under Articlt 141 of the} Consti[ution oi^{India. It is noteworthy that b/ the timethe} judgment in uma Devi's case^(supra), was^{r-endered,the} -proviriont of Act 2 of 1994 and G.o. Ms. '1o.212, dated 22.4.1994 , were in^{existence. The Suprem e Court, while} denouncing the^practice of^{regularizationand ,bsorption of f} persons, who entered service through^{backdc'r rs by givinga} go-bye to the due procedure^{prescribed for} 'l^{)pointments to} one-time public posts, consciously ordered^llr a bsorption/reg^{ula rization} of^{those, who wereworking fora} period of not less than 10^years. It has^{givenc rectionsin this} regard to all the State^{Governments and alsc Jnion of India'} ThL Supreme Court is^{presumedto be consciou:;)f variousState} enactments such as^{Act 2 of 1994 and executi( orderssuch as} G.O. Ms. No.212, dated^{22.4.L994. while gi\ i rq directionsin} Para No.53 of the^{judgmentin Uma Devi's ct;e (supra)But} still, it has not^{made any exception in favour of I le States where} State enactments^{banningreg ularization/. t sorption exist.} A 994 .Ms -^{No.212, dated} 22.4.1994. do not whittle^dow the y,idth and the iudoment in Maniura^Easrrrni's case^(st rr rra), does not lower the traiectorv of^thedi ons -^{ssued bv the} supreme court in Para 53 of^{ats iudqmerd} in Uma Devi's case^(supra). [t is. therefore,^{not oerrf} issible for the r ndent s to take shelte r under 2c! 1994 and G.O. Ms. No .2L2. dated 2.4.1994. to denv l!^qulari tion to ners ha itte satisfied the criteria laid down in Para^No.53 of^the ir^{I lomentin Uma} Devi's ca (suora).

¶203

For the aforementioned^{reasons,orderCated27.6.20L7 ,} in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the^{file of the Tri runal is set aside} and the writ oetit on ts all wed wit th€ _ direction to the

a-:/ ,+&1.;

SN,J wP 26413 2021

s nts I h h t a x o r InsDectors^{andaDooint them} ubie tot err s^atisfvno th ter w ara 53 t ud nt withina v omonths fromI T^hed r^{te ofrecer} bof mcoDv of this order."

¶209

he Divi n nc t isC rt its d en te 1 20 ed I.A os. f2 20i o 2 1 d P 23 7o 201 re rte tn 20 AL a 379atparas⁴⁵ ,4^8an Dar 50 bserved^{as under: -}

¶210

"45. There is no^{dispute that petitioners have been workingon} O"ifV *"g"^{since1d9O and haveput in almost.(30) years of} t"i..^{UV now. Theyhave beengiven minimumtim.e-scalefrom} in'"' v-u'zOOO.^{They havebeen continuously working without} any 6ou.t^{ordersin their favour from 1990 till date'}

¶211

1st soondent^hasnot 44. It is^{notknownwhv the} il tn ev a ex lain ln .L. Kesar sca e^(sora)and nde ke a one-tame exercase of reDa rtno the^Iist dai vw^oe e lo s w ed t 1 t 1n e n f u n Tr who.ethero^th d ar wo rkinqtoaoarronst vacanrifitDo tsan^nd e e a at th a if reo u lariz their^sen,l s.

¶212

AccordinglY,^{the writ Petition is allowed;the imPUgned} orders dated^{20.8.2019Passedby the 1st respondent rejecting} the cases of Petitioners^{for reg ularizationof serviceson one-} time basis^{are declaredas illega} arbitrary^{and violativeof} Articles^14, 16 and 21 of^the Constitution^{of India;th!!} w in w f r co oft e ord^er."

.-il:,
->"
:#

SN,J tP 26433 202t

23, This Court opines that an the oresen! case, the resoondents failed to rsc ha roe their dutv in examtnrnq the reouest of the Det tto ner for reoula l rzation of n r' rvtc wh is workin as u n e sweeper and further to consider his reouest to treat th,! temporarv service of the^p etitioner in the last^qrade oost rf full time sweeDer as reoular one for all^purooses bv ol antino last qrade Dav with oeriodical increment revised f r om time to time from the date of aooointment of the or titioner, in accordance to law.

¶217

This Court opines that^petitionel ls ,:ntitled for consideration of^petitioner's case fo!"^qrant of _ he relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition in ',iew of the observations of the Apex Court in variou:i iudoments (referred to and extracted above) and the - riew of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judqmenl: referred to and extracted above.

¶218

Takinq into consideration:-

¶219

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

SN,J wP 26433 202t

b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:

¶224

ix2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12o9 (v) (2017) I scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) SCc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 sc0223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD pase 282 (xvi) 2O20(4)ALD page 379

¶225

d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.l82 of 2OlO and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2007 and C.C.No.48 of 20O8 (referred to and extracted above),

I l

SN,J wP 26433 2o2t

e) .The Division Bench order of this (: )urt dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.p.No.2 7217 of 2Ot7 ( referred to and extracted above),

¶230

f) The Division Bench order of this (r. urt dated 2l.O4.ZO2O passed in f .A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 o, 2O19 and W.P.No.230 57 of 2Ol9 (referred to and extract( d above).

¶231

g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present o.der.

¶232

he Wr tP tati ni al o (! :itio ner ts direc ed to Dutrth the claim of t e Del tion er t f r ul rI a nof et ti er s tc s a als Q the claim of thED ationer to tr he te Dor erv I :es of t e Detiti oner tnt he la tqr de o t of s eEDer a !qular o e t, ral u s sb a la wifl! periodica! ln e o m r t e date of a ot t n of h a d lt otI ;eouentia I n f ts d e lo ln a h e e td C ! rments in u of ti lo e s s the D e e t ra ti wt hina d fo e 1 w eir -trs.I!_!t'c d t fr o ft e dt he :! oondents shalle mine andco nsr { he tne tn acc (, 'd nce to

SN,J wP 26433 2021

I w ln con mi h lnct o na a u ov n nt f er on h fln to h Detitioner, in term of orders DA ssed bv the Supreme ou n a evi' er o di 2 6 s P e e d e a ed n P o 77 of 20 7 at o8 .o9. 201O re DO di n2O 11 1) LD, Paqe 234 ndas nfi !n o a2 f2 10 at 1 0 o1 a

¶238

al oa sDerDi vtsro NBenc Ju om nt fth ts Cou rt dated o 2 o 2 o 20 7 d 01 2 D a 2 n ls vts e ud e th u d 0 20 I.A. Nos.l of20 2O in 1of 20L9in .P.N o.23 o57 f20 19 e !n 20 4 D 37 w ch ad e final itv within aDe todoffo ur (O4) eeks fromthed te of receiDt of acoDV oft his order dulv ta kinqin to consid ratio nth observations and the awlaid down bv the Aoex Court tn the vaflous iud qme nts referred to and c a v cu ra 5 he iud^qm ent of the A 'x c,ourt tn 'he se ofState of Karnataka v a vi an d dulv comm un! te he eci n ti ne H ev t e al be er s c s

SN.J wP 26433 202t

i j I

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending n this Writ

¶244

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶245

SD/- S. MAL- KARJUNARAO ASSISTAI T REGISTRAR